(02-04-2016 06:42 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: how many injuries will the head protection prevent, and how many will the vision obstruction cause? i hope it's a net benefit, but i'm skeptical.

is their much vision obstruction? The halo is above the drivers line of sight and the pillar is where they always had an aerial sticking up anyway. The testing will have highlighted how much it got in the way and I'm sure they will run prototypes through this year with the test teams long before it is seen in a race.

(02-04-2016 06:12 PM)leonbray Wrote: oh goodie

got to love these decisions

Why not go the full monty and make something outlandish that works

The rabble couldn't get over the noise for 18 months, closing the cockpit would kill half of them.

(02-04-2016 06:42 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: how many injuries will the head protection prevent, and how many will the vision obstruction cause? i hope it's a net benefit, but i'm skeptical.

is their much vision obstruction? The halo is above the drivers line of sight and the pillar is where they always had an aerial sticking up anyway. The testing will have highlighted how much it got in the way and I'm sure they will run prototypes through this year with the test teams long before it is seen in a race.

it doesn't look like much obstruction, but it is some. there's a reason we don't have split windshields on our cars anymore. the pillar is going to have to be more substantial than a radio aerial, obviously, and it's a lot closer to the driver's face than the aerial, which will make it look even bigger. i hope it's not an issue. it just leapt out at me as odd to have a safety device planted right in front of the driver's eyes.

(02-04-2016 06:42 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: how many injuries will the head protection prevent, and how many will the vision obstruction cause? i hope it's a net benefit, but i'm skeptical.

is their much vision obstruction? The halo is above the drivers line of sight and the pillar is where they always had an aerial sticking up anyway. The testing will have highlighted how much it got in the way and I'm sure they will run prototypes through this year with the test teams long before it is seen in a race.

it doesn't look like much obstruction, but it is some. there's a reason we don't have split windshields on our cars anymore. the pillar is going to have to be more substantial than a radio aerial, obviously, and it's a lot closer to the driver's face than the aerial, which will make it look even bigger. i hope it's not an issue. it just leapt out at me as odd to have a safety device planted right in front of the driver's eyes.

True, I also wonder how much interpretation there is in the design. A part of me thinks the Halo area looks like it would make a nice little extra wing, or something to channel air flow to the rear.

I expect no matter what they do a driver that dislikes it will blame it on an accident at some point.

**edit**

It could also create issues with shadowing that don't exist today that could be a pain. Depending on the position of the sun you could be getting the same effect as going under a bridge at several corners per lap.

if they let the teams play with that space, it will definitely be used for airflow management; funneling air to the intake and splitting off the rest to either side with minimal turbulence.

how light plays off it is something i hadn't thought of. they'll have to experiment a lot to work that out, since they race at so many different times of day. shadows could be a concern, and also, glare off the inside edge of the rim when driving away from the sun could be a problem.

there are plenty of high strength clear polycarbonates that could be used to make a deflecting device, without inhibiting vision or detracting from the appearance of the car. The drivers sit so low in the car that it doesn't need to be very high. What it won't stop is damage cause by a flying wheel

(02-06-2016 12:28 AM)leonbray Wrote: there are plenty of high strength clear polycarbonates that could be used to make a deflecting device, without inhibiting vision or detracting from the appearance of the car. The drivers sit so low in the car that it doesn't need to be very high. What it won't stop is damage cause by a flying wheel

I think it significantly reduces the space for something like that to hot a driver. It would have to be from directly above to get to them with the halo. If it was bouncing debris, like Justin Wilsons crash, it should be deflected.

(02-11-2016 11:45 AM)Miguel Wrote: My memory is bad. In the last 20 years, how many drivers were injured/killed by flying debris in open wheel formulas? what's the ratio to other injuries/fatalities?

Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson are the two I can remember, plus Massa's accident with the spring. I think there have been a few near misses as well, Hinchcliffe was hit by part of a front wing and got lucky.

So, two non-F1 fatalities and one accident over 20 years, and the Surtees accident would have been avoided if GP2 followed F1 on tethered wheels.
All loss is a loss too many but I sense politically-correct overreaction plus a bunch of apparatchiks in need of justifying their existence.

(02-11-2016 01:13 PM)Miguel Wrote: So, two non-F1 fatalities and one accident over 20 years, and the Surtees accident would have been avoided if GP2 followed F1 on tethered wheels.
All loss is a loss too many but I sense politically-correct overreaction plus a bunch of apparatchiks in need of justifying their existence.

I think Justin Wilson was pretty close to home for a lot of F1 drivers who grew up karting with him and knew him from his F1 days. When fatal/serious accidents are rare you are into the law of diminishing returns with new safety measures, but it isn't a good reason to stop improving, but this does feel a bit knee jerk though with how fast it was made a priority. I just hope they don't screw it up by rushing.

Hopefully they also listened to drivers rather than the rabble in their decision making.

(02-11-2016 04:47 PM)Jackson Wrote: Would Koinigg's or Cevert's death be prevented? Not flying debris, but exposure certainly played a part.

and you can add Tom Pryce and maybe others but then we're over the 20 years horizon I had mentioned, therefore widening the overall basis.
Exposure does play a part, but so does poorly designed barriers, roll-over bars placed lower than the top of the helmet, marshals running across the track with fire extinguishers and cars doing 300km/h.

(09-26-2016 07:44 PM)leonbray Wrote: When was the last time we had a good looking F1 car with simple elegant lines

Probably around the late 60's when the engineers started to get into aero. Everything since has had wings of some sort.

(07-20-2017 09:37 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: i'll reserve final judgment until the teams get a chance to put their superior engineers to work on it, but i'm still very skeptical of this idea.

I'd agree with the skepticism and that we should wait until we see the final versions. Between clever engineers and clever marketing placement I'm sure they will look a lot different. The teams won't have wasted a lot of resources on this in the early concept stage.